« JEAN CHAREST
CAN THE FDIC GO BROKE IN 2011 ? »

THE ECONOMY 2008 PT. 1


Recession begetting recession. Low welfare rates, mortgage lending, structure boom, speculation, bust.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 4th, 2010 at 8:18 am and is filed under Mortgage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

25 Responses to “THE ECONOMY 2008 PT. 1”

  1. Nice work. keep it up. mean time come for social media marketing for esteembpo**com

  2. Yeah, “Liberal” Fox News does it all the time

  3. Also you remind me of a really good friend of mine. You talk exactly the same. It’s really uncanny, actually. I’m a little freaked out.

  4. Thank you so much. My AP Government teacher tried to explain this to me, and I just didn’t get it. You made me understand.
    As I commented on Recession # 2, you’re my favorite.
    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

  5. Thank you! You just explained something super complicated in such easy terms. BIG BIG THANK YOUS

  6. why don’t u be my prof
    i would never sleep in my businces class !!!

  7. You really remind me of an old friend… Now I an sad…

  8. always blam the awesome democrats never the republicans that fuck up all the time and once again a democrat has to fix the mess of a fucking retarded repiblican that is to stupid to be president

  9. Nice job on video. The President appoints the FED chairman who has a 14 year term. My background is electronics, but I am learning. It seems the core issue with the economy is a lack of manufacturing. Most nations we borrow from need our economy to be strong so we will purchase their products. NREL needs funding more than (insert all inefficient gvmt programs here). I work with Renewable Energy and there are a lot of challenges money won’t solve, but it takes money for research and development.

  10. this really helped me also. I am glad to have it explained this articulately regardless of criticisms made by others :D

  11. Couldn’t find his ass with both hands lmfao.

  12. OMG!!!FOREHEAD!!!
    Anyway, you are mostly correct…..but…..
    One problem with your argument. Fannie and Freddie sued to the banks to make the loans. The banks didn’t want to make the loans because they knew they were bad. Obama was the lawyer that sued them…..and he and his democratic cohorts benefited the most. And to answer the question; this is where he attained most of his wealth. They lied to the poor people when they told them that they were “rich” and made big bucks off of them.

  13. HAHAHA couldnt find the ass with both hands!!!! wow that was bomb!!!

  14. thank’s i am a new fan of your’s and this realy helped me inderstand the u.s.a.’s problem beter :) even though it is a bad one.

  15. This was the culmination of years of Democratic social engineering policies (Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA) combined with the deregulation of derivatives trading (the CFMA) coming home to roost.

  16. In point of fact a great many top dog Democratic fund raisers like the Sandlers and the Pritzkers had their fingers in a few subprime mortgage lending pies. They got out with billions by offloading their mortgage lending companies to unsuspecting financial institutions shortly before the collapse of the housing market in 2006.

  17. Yes but which president deregulated the credit default swaps used to underwrite all those bad debt mortgage backed securities when he signed the CFMA? I’ll give you a hint. There is no W. in his middle name. Right wing free market ideologues and greedy capitalists are not the sole bearers of responsibility for this mess.

  18. lazyperfectionist1 on February 4th, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    It also seems like the classic problem of too many eggs in one basket (real estate).

  19. lazyperfectionist1 on February 4th, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    If I understand you correctly, it seems that this would not have happened if the banks’ standards had stayed high and the interest rates had stayed low.

  20. lazyperfectionist1 on February 4th, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    Who’s idea was it to call it “speculation?” That seems kind of dishonest. Rather like calling a high-powered assault rifle a frog and saying to parents, “What’s wrong with your child owning a frog?”

  21. not familiar

  22. lazyperfectionist1 on February 4th, 2010 at 7:27 pm

    What do you have to say about the book “Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity?” Are you familiar with it?

  23. wrong

  24. Thank you, thank you, thank you! I feel like dancing around singing “Suddenly I See” because its all so clear to me now! You should write “The Economy for Idiots” because you are great at explaining this stuff! You pretty much spoon fed it to me which was exactly what I needed! Yay, I’m informed!

    I feel smart now. =]

  25. Wow, much more specific than Hank Green from vlogbrothers